Another reason for me to hate e-books. Your e-book is reading YOU.

[Anti Federalist]

Even during quiet, solitary, reading time, you are no longer free from the prying eyes of the government/industrial complex.

Buy real books people...



Your E-Book Is Reading You

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304870304577490950051438304.html?m od=WSJ_Tech_RIGHTTopCarousel_1​

It takes the average reader just seven hours to read the final book in Suzanne Collins's "Hunger Games" trilogy on the Kobo e-reader—about 57 pages an hour. Nearly 18,000 Kindle readers have highlighted the same line from the second book in the series: "Because sometimes things happen to people and they're not equipped to deal with them." And on Barnes & Noble's Nook, the first thing that most readers do upon finishing the first "Hunger Games" book is to download the next one.

In the past, publishers and authors had no way of knowing what happens when a reader sits down with a book. Does the reader quit after three pages, or finish it in a single sitting? Do most readers skip over the introduction, or read it closely, underlining passages and scrawling notes in the margins? Now, e-books are providing a glimpse into the story behind the sales figures, revealing not only how many people buy particular books, but how intensely they read them.

For centuries, reading has largely been a solitary and private act, an intimate exchange between the reader and the words on the page. But the rise of digital books has prompted a profound shift in the way we read, transforming the activity into something measurable and quasi-public.

The major new players in e-book publishing—Amazon, Apple and Google—can easily track how far readers are getting in books, how long they spend reading them and which search terms they use to find books. Book apps for tablets like the iPad, Kindle Fire and Nook record how many times readers open the app and how much time they spend reading. Retailers and some publishers are beginning to sift through the data, gaining unprecedented insight into how people engage with books.

[heavenlyboy34]

A way to get around this is to convert a hard cover book to pdf and email it to your kindle. Just FYI. Also, my Kindle 1G isn't trackable like the Fire. You can get one used for $100 or so.

[Acala]

I'm a fan of "real" books, and I buy a lot of them, but I am NOT a fan of the way in which they get published. What gets published as a "real" book is almost totally, and rather arbitrarily, controlled by a small handful of corporations. As a consequence it is very difficult to get a "real" book published AND the author, unless he has a proven track record of best sellers and is a free agent, gets screwed financially. Much like the traditional music business.

On the other hand, it is now possible for an author to publish an ebook through Amazon, make it instantly available to millions of people, keep the bulk of the royalties, and pay nothing up front. That will prove to be a monumental sea change in the dissemination of the written word

Ebooks are the future and largely a good thing, offering authors more freedom and readers more choices in what to read.

Maybe you should start an ebook publisher that promises no data mining?

[mad cow]

I bought The Hunger Games trilogy on Kindle for $15.I'm a slower than average reader but even at that average rate that's $0.71 an hour for entertainment I spent no time or gas money in my 12mpg truck to acquire.Cheap thrills.

Do you think the internet is not data mined,or should we get all the info we now get by computer from printed books too?

[Anti Federalist]

I bought The Hunger Games trilogy on Kindle for $15.I'm a slower than average reader but even at that average rate that's $0.71 an hour for entertainment I spent no time or gas money in my 12mpg truck to acquire.Cheap thrills.

Do you think the internet is not data mined,or should we get all the info we now get by computer from printed books too?

Nope, of course it is.

Those cheap thrills don't come all that cheap.

And I know you like using e-books for the font size, but that's how we'll all be trapped, by our little conveniences.

[TheTexan]

In Soviet Amerika

[Anti Federalist]

In Soviet Amerika

I LOLed!

[Slacker]

Don't buy an e-book from Amazon, Google, or Apple. Problem solved. I don't think it's a big secret those companies watch your every move. People don't mind giving up a little privacy because they provide a convenient service. I prefer downloading drm free books from Demonoid and loading them onto my reader with none being the wiser, but obviously the IP Nazis on this site prefer a police state and being spied on.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I much prefer tangible books. They're not bound by requirements of electricity or batteries, and all other manner of possible malfunction. They can be lent to folks who may not own one of these devices, they can be marked in ways that easily allow me to find the information I want, etc.

I still can't believe people defend paying 50$ for something that is infinitely reproducible. You folks would be arguing to outlaw the Star Trek reproduction gizmo to the great dismay of all peoples living standards.

But, then again, why on Earth would you pay for something that you can get for free! (Perhaps because price is not the sole motivating factor /shocker) (See: Mises Institute. All their books are FREE, but they have a booming business selling books. According to Gunny this is impossible, or altruism...LOL.)

[Brian4Liberty]

Your E-Book Is Reading You


I can't read that without hearing it in a Yakov Smirnoff voice... "In USSA, e-books read you!" :D

[Kluge]

I bought The Hunger Games trilogy on Kindle for $15.I'm a slower than average reader but even at that average rate that's $0.71 an hour for entertainment I spent no time or gas money in my 12mpg truck to acquire.Cheap thrills.

Do you think the internet is not data mined,or should we get all the info we now get by computer from printed books too?

Really? $15? People pay that much for a book they can never actually own?

[TheTexan]

Really? $15? People pay that much for a book they can never actually own?

You can't own words... e-book or paperback, it's just a preference of medium.

I for one like my personal eavesdropping assistant. I don't mind my kindle eavesdropping on me, because it's kinda redundant - the Feds are doing that already

[Kregisen]

Like it or not some things in the future will be tracked. If you want to believe the government will be trying to track you by the number of pages you're through in 50 shades of gray, instead of practical means like drones and cameras, you might want to invent a time machine.

Then again I work for Amazon so perhaps I'm lying to all of you so I can sell your souls to Big Brother.... (Bwahahahaha)

[Kluge]

You can't own words... e-book or paperback, it's just a preference of medium.

I for one like my personal eavesdropping assistant. I don't mind my kindle eavesdropping on me, because it's kinda redundant - the Feds are doing that already

If you want to nitpick, of course people could steal a book from me--but if I have a physical copy, I can let people borrow it, reference it whenever I want, make notes on it, stick it on a shelf, use it for kindling, make an end table out of a bunch of them, throw multiple ones at intruders, rip it to shreds, use it for gift wrap...I can almost own the medium that the words are on--if it's a physical book. I can never even come close to owning an e-book. Nor can I use it for anything but precisely what it is. Why would I pay the same money for something so limited? Why would I pay the same for something that other people can eavesdrop on?

F that, they should pay me to use an e-book.

[Anti Federalist]

Like it or not some all things in the future will be tracked. If you want to believe the government will be trying to track you by the number of pages you're through in 50 shades of gray, instead of practical means like drones and cameras, you might want to invent a time machine.

FTFY.

Time will catch up with me soon, and I won't have to worry about it.

But you, and your children and your children's children will live in a world where everything will be monitored, tracked, checked, homogenized and sold.

Where 24/7 surveillance of every single move you make and word you speak will be analyzed for compliance with volumes of laws, codes and edicts, or your very essence distilled into a commodity, to be hawked and sold and screamed vectored advertising at from every medium all around you.

And the fact that the response to this is "meh, what are you gonna do, government already watches you anyway, besides I like my (insert technological doo-dad here)" just makes me wonder why I'm even fucking bothering.

The future is fail.

[specsaregood]

And I know you like using e-books for the font size, but that's how we'll all be trapped, by our little conveniences.

my copy of the hunger games is in large font type. i had never read a large font type book and was surprised at how nice it was. it was a paper book. carryon.

[specsaregood]

Why would I pay the same money for something so limited?

moving with piles of books is a pita.

[heavenlyboy34]

FTFY.

Time will catch up with me soon, and I won't have to worry about it.

But you, and your children and your children's children will live in a world where everything will be monitored, tracked, checked, homogenized and sold.

Where 24/7 surveillance of every single move you make and word you speak will be analyzed for compliance with volumes of laws, codes and edicts, or your very essence distilled into a commodity, to be hawked and sold and screamed vectored advertising at from every medium all around you.

And the fact that the response to this is "meh, what are you gonna do, government already watches you anyway, besides I like my (insert technological doo-dad here)" just makes me wonder why I'm even fucking bothering.

The future is fail.
I don't think raging against The Machine is a waste of time. Some people just browse these threads and may be influenced by you. :) The future would be fail even without the kindles, farcebooks, etc. The Surveilance State came to be anyway. Boobus is easily scared into compliance because of some boogeyman or another. At the current trajectory, RFID chip implants may be as "standard" as social security numbers. For your safety, of course. :P

[RickyJ]

And on Barnes & Noble's Nook, the first thing that most readers do upon finishing the first "Hunger Games" book is to download the next one.

That is exactly what I did. But I didn't read it nearly as fast as the average. 57 pages an hour? That is about a page a minute, I don't read that fast.

[Cleaner44]

I have a Nook but I don't use it with Barnes and Noble. I download books from Mises and other free sources. I don't sync it with B&N or download apps.

[RickyJ]

For centuries, reading has largely been a solitary and private act, an intimate exchange between the reader and the words on the page.

Somehow this seems really dirty. I read for knowledge first and foremost, not to be intimate with someone. You don't need words for that. Did you really buy the hype that people actually buy Playboy for the articles? :D

[TheTexan]

In theory I don't actually have any problems with private companies collecting data on me, as long as the info stays private. If I have any objections to the data they collect, I just don't use their product/service.

Of course, the info doesn't ever stay private. FedGov has its hands in every pipe, tube, and server. And on top of that the bull shit about Google Maps where they spy on you and call THAT a service...

[heavenlyboy34]

In theory I don't actually have any problems with private companies collecting data on me, as long as the info stays private. If I have any objections to the data they collect, I just don't use their product/service.

Of course, the info doesn't ever stay private. FedGov has its hands in every pipe, tube, and server. And on top of that the bull shit about Google Maps where they spy on you and call THAT a service...
You know, if roads were private, that most likely wouldn't be possible. But that's an inconvenient truth that will be denied by a whole lot of people. /end off topic ramble

[Luciconsort]

i don't see this as any more than a company doing market research. if you don't want to be profiled as to your usage of the device, then don't buy one, or don't make notes or underline anything. read your EULA, all this stuff they do is in the fine print that no one reads. but, all that flies out the window soon as i'm sure the gubment will be tracking you as well.... eventually. the technology itself kicks ass, but all that said i still pay cash for hard copy of any "revolutionary material" i might be interested in reading. safety first :)

[heavenlyboy34]

i don't see this as any more than a company doing market research. if you don't want to be profiled as to your usage of the device, then don't buy one, or don't make notes or underline anything. read your EULA, all this stuff they do is in the fine print that no one reads. but, all that flies out the window soon as i'm sure the gubment will be tracking you as well.... eventually. the technology itself kicks ass, but all that said i still pay cash for hard copy of any "revolutionary material" i might be interested in reading. safety first :)
You're already on "The List" by virtue of being on this site. But just in case, reported.
http://www.*****ty.com/wp/docs/2008/11/20070227_napolitano_3.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

A common theme throughout dystopian literature, is the banning, editing, removing, revising, and monitoring of books, who reads them and why.

There is a reason for this.

It's bad enough trying to decipher ancient runes that are thousands of years old.

Try getting any data off of this, and this is only after thirty years:

http://plutonius.aibrean.com/images/models/5Flop.JPG

E-books, and the knowledge that they contain, will be unusable in 30 years or so, and much will be lost.

[TheTexan]

A common theme throughout dystopian literature, is the banning, editing, removing, revising, and monitoring of books, who reads them and why.

There is a reason for this.

It's bad enough trying to decipher ancient runes that are thousands of years old.

Try getting any data off of this, and this is only after thirty years:

http://plutonius.aibrean.com/images/models/5Flop.JPG

E-books, and the knowledge that they contain, will be unusable in 30 years or so, and much will be lost.

Don't have to read it off the floppy. The info on that floppy is on thousands of servers across the world. Maybe in a SHTF situation you'd want real books... but in a SHTF situation I'm not going to be doing a whole lot of reading

[heavenlyboy34]

A common theme throughout dystopian literature, is the banning, editing, removing, revising, and monitoring of books, who reads them and why.

There is a reason for this.

It's bad enough trying to decipher ancient runes that are thousands of years old.

Try getting any data off of this, and this is only after thirty years:

http://plutonius.aibrean.com/images/models/5Flop.JPG

E-books, and the knowledge that they contain, will be unusable in 30 years or so, and much will be lost.
You can build adapters for those that allow you to plug in to your USB port and use it like any other external storage device. But, yeah-a technology that's been around 10000+ years like books, are likely useful and won't just "go away". (your post reminds me of Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", btw)

[BuddyRey]

My wireless reader doesn't have its own network, so I download ebooks on my PC and transfer them to the reader with a USB cable. I don't imagine they can be so easily tracked and traced this way.

[donnay]

These e-books are just another way of book burning without the fire. If they want to eliminate certain books they will just simple erase them. Call me old fashioned, and I am all for technology, but when it gets in the wrong hands it's a bad thing.

We are literally paying for our own enslavement.

[TheTexan]

These e-books are just another way of book burning without the fire. If they want to eliminate certain books they will just simple erase them. Call me old fashioned, and I am all for technology, but when it gets in the wrong hands it's a bad thing.

We are literally paying for our own enslavement.

I disagree. You can fit a hundred thousand books on a thumb drive. You can hide a thumb drive pretty easy. Try hiding 100,000 books

[donnay]

I disagree. You can fit a hundred thousand books on a thumb drive. You can hide a thumb drive pretty easy. Try hiding 100,000 books

I am not techno savvy but here our some questions I have... How do you charge it if there is no electricity? Is it wifi? Can it be used as another tracking device?

[Anti Federalist]

I disagree. You can fit a hundred thousand books on a thumb drive. You can hide a thumb drive pretty easy. Try hiding 100,000 books

When the technology to actually extract any information from that USB drive is all linked into the Matrix it becomes fairly worthless.

"Attention Citizen: DHS monitoring of this system indicated banned material is contained on your memory storage device! Stand where you are and await SWAT, which will be arriving shortly!".

Demolition Man, for real.

[TheTexan]

I am not techno savvy but here our some questions I have... How do you charge it if there is no electricity? Is it wifi? Can it be used as another tracking device?

A thumb drive is just data storage. None of that fancy wifi or tracking stuff. It'll keep the data for a very long time (forever?) without electricity

[TheTexan]

When the technology to actually extract any information from that USB drive is all linked into the Matrix it becomes fairly worthless.

"Attention Citizen: DHS monitoring of this system indicated banned material is contained on your memory storage device! Stand where you are and await SWAT, which will be arriving shortly!".

Demolition Man, for real.

Black market USB readers IMO. Just as books have been around since the early days of man, so has the black market... neither is going away any time soon

[Anti Federalist]

Black market USB readers IMO. Just as books have been around since the early days of man, so has the black market... neither is going away any time soon

I foresee and end to the "black market", very soon actually.

Never before in mankind's history has it been feasible to monitor and track every single person and every square inch of the earth's surface.

Until now.

My mind burns with how bad all this could get, if we don't put a stop to it now.

[heavenlyboy34]

I foresee and end to the "black market", very soon actually.

Never before in mankind's history has it been feasible to monitor and track every single person and every square inch of the earth's surface.

Until now.

My mind burns with how bad all this could get, if we don't put a stop to it now.
Black Markets have existed in every totalitarian regime. If it comes down to it, we'll create our own Samizdat system. Even in 1984 and We there were a few ways to get away from the eyes of The State-even if temporary. That little bit is enough for a revolution to be planned. As long as there's a desire for private communication, some tinkerer will figure it out.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I foresee and end to the "black market", very soon actually.

Never before in mankind's history has it been feasible to monitor and track every single person and every square inch of the earth's surface.

Until now.

My mind burns with how bad all this could get, if we don't put a stop to it now.

You know, this doesn't bother me as much as one would think at first glance. Consider that information overload would be so prevalent it would render moot the vast swaths of the system. For all purposes what is there, isn't really. Never mind the fact that it would take considerably more man power than they currently possess to both administer this, and enforce it. Of course, there will be some of the population who would gleefully report you due to envy, monetary incentive, or just sheer obedience to authority, but even that wouldn't come close to being of sufficient strength.

The black market will always exist and economic theory backs this up. We can thank Mises for his Calculation theorams / critiques (and this applies to the firm also). So, yeah, am I as worried about surveillance becoming so prevalent as to actually become vis a vis a prison? Nah. There's no way even with computerized systems and algorithmic logging (just imagine 5 million people spamming the words that get shot off to CIANET whatever the heck they have) can discern and interpret like a human can.

I'm more concerned with their force of arms than their camera's and computer hacking.

[TheTexan]

You know, this doesn't bother me as much as one would think at first glance. Consider that information overload would be so prevalent it would render moot the vast swaths of the system.

That's what this is for:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/wp-content/gallery/20-04/ff_nsadatacenter_f.jpg

Face recognition, license plate reading... behavioral analysis... theoretically they could have it look for someone smoking a joint, and send an automatic alert

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's what this is for:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/wp-content/gallery/20-04/ff_nsadatacenter_f.jpg

Face recognition, license plate reading... behavioral analysis... theoretically they could have it look for someone smoking a joint, and send an automatic alert

I addressed this in the post you semi-quoted (if you bothered reading the rest). Those things are simply easy to overload and render moot. Not to mention computers will never become self-actualizing to the human extent (considering we will probably never really fully figure out our brain). You also have time working in your favor. It takes cops how long to respond to most calls today? Yeah.....now try centralizing a tracking system for 400 million people and see how fast you get backed up. They'll be processing shit that happened 6 months ago.

[GunnyFreedom]

Don't buy an e-book from Amazon, Google, or Apple. Problem solved. I don't think it's a big secret those companies watch your every move. People don't mind giving up a little privacy because they provide a convenient service. I prefer downloading drm free books from Demonoid and loading them onto my reader with none being the wiser, but obviously the IP Nazis on this site prefer a police state and being spied on.

LOL some of the folks around here are almost as bad as the dingbat Dems and retard Reps I have to deal with in the legislature. "If you don't 100% agree with me then you are 100% teh enemy!!!11!!1!"

...and if I 85% agree with you, am I still 100% the enemy?

This is why I have avoided the whole IP war heretofore, and should have kept avoiding it. Too many people around these parts are entirely irrational on the subject.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

LOL some of the folks around here are almost as bad as the dingbat Dems and retard Reps I have to deal with in the legislature. "If you don't 100% agree with me then you are 100% teh enemy!!!11!!1!"

...and if I 85% agree with you, am I still 100% the enemy?

This is why I have avoided the whole IP war heretofore, and should have kept avoiding it. Too many people around these parts are entirely irrational on the subject.

This coming from the person who honestly believes that without IP there would be no more creation, never mind the fact that the Mises Institute gives away all their books on their database for free, yet, for against all reality people actually buy books for some unknown reason...wait...no it was altruism, but yet, you said even that wouldn't happen...so it can't be that! Come up with anything yet Gunny (I gave a few answers myself...)? Wait...maybe, it's because some people actually like having bound paper books, or because they want the LvMI to continue publishing works and perhaps might commission a few someday, etc. etc., but yeah, no IP poof all creation dies.

[GunnyFreedom]

This coming from the person who honestly believes that without IP there would be no more creation, never mind the fact that the Mises Institute gives away all their books on their database for free, yet, for against all reality people actually buy books for some unknown reason...wait...no it was altruism, but yet, you said even that wouldn't happen...so it can't be that! Come up with anything yet Gunny (I gave a few answers myself...)? Wait...maybe, it's because some people actually like having bound paper books, or because they want the LvMI to continue publishing works and perhaps might commission a few someday, etc. etc., but yeah, no IP poof all creation dies.

Even assuming all you say as true for the sake of argument, do you really think that people who frequent LvMI represent 'the norm' amongst the population?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Even assuming all you say as true for the sake of argument, do you really think that people who frequent LvMI represent 'the norm' amongst the population?

I take umbrage at calling yourself abnormal, as well as myself. :p I kid I kid. I don't see any fundamental reason why we are any different than any other human who has all the same faculties and reason as we do. Sure, they may not use it to it's potential as we do, but even they aren't so dumb to not understand that if you want a good to continue to be produced the person who is producing it must be able to make enough money to at the very least, make ends meat so to speak. There'll always be demand for imaginative works, for culture, for the arts (and there are some neat comparisons / case studies comparing Pre-Unification Germany City-States which had no IP and England which had/has very strict IP that clearly destroy the utilitarian notion for IP (let's just say the German's whipped ze Brits butts)), etc.

Those that value and can afford these items, goods, works, etc. will surely support the creators. As just one example I know many people in the metal community to wit I am a part, not only donate to their favorite bands, but readily buy shirts, or request to go around music labels to buy CD's, etc. even though surely they could get it for free. The great thing about abolishing IP is that it removes the monopoly, and I think we can both agree that monopolies are antithetical to competition, innovation, and progress. The point of contention is you (if I am wrong correct me) don't see IP as a monopoly, or you switch between utilitarian and non-utilitarian position whichever fits your normative view at the time and don't see this as a monopoly..However, can you agree that a person who yields a IP-grant is the sole 'owner' or producer of said specific good? Imagine if only Ford could build a car, or only the family of Diesel could build an engine, how much better off society would be with those monopolies? Not too well, right?

Long winded point: Yes, we don't possess any special gene or trait that other human's are missing.

[GunnyFreedom]

I've been at it for 60 grinding hours straight, finally forced H32 Electoral Freedom Act (Ballot Access Reform) to a Senate Vote for the first time in 2 years where it failed 5-33, and I'm bloody exhausted. I'm not going to be drawn into this again. In the other thread, you as bad as anybody else just made up whole cloth what you assumed I believed and attributed it to me (i guess because it makes it easier to argue against what you think I believe than what I actually believe) and if you keep it up here all that's going to do is make me spitting mad. I won't be dragged into it. Like I said above, it's irrational. If I don't 100% believe in lockstep with you I am 100% enemy, or as the other gentleman put it "IP Nazi." I get enough of that irrational claptrap 48 hours a day at work, I don't need it here.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I've been at it for 60 grinding hours straight, finally forced H32 Electoral Freedom Act (Ballot Access Reform) to a Senate Vote for the first time in 2 years where it failed 5-33, and I'm bloody exhausted. I'm not going to be drawn into this again. In the other thread, you as bad as anybody else just made up whole cloth what you assumed I believed and attributed it to me (i guess because it makes it easier to argue against what you think I believe than what I actually believe) and if you keep it up here all that's going to do is make me spitting mad. I won't be dragged into it. Like I said above, it's irrational. If I don't 100% believe in lockstep with you I am 100% enemy, or as the other gentleman put it "IP Nazi." I get enough of that irrational claptrap 48 hours a day at work, I don't need it here.

You ask a question, I answer it, I get this. I've never called you an enemy, so I don't know where you got that from. Yes, I do get a bit perturbed when people don't address my arguments...the whole point to a debate is point > counter point > address/rebuttal points > etc. There's an expectation to acknowledge the 'opposing' sides argument and address it, and vice versa. As long as exchanges follow that format and aren't iterations of straw men, or complete dismissal (read: completely ignoring everything written), then I am perfectly collected and willing to change my views, and have done so many times. Anyways, I don't know how much more proof I need to show you before you even address those issues, or what moral point that I guess I am not explaining well enough...

Also....I can't even be half as bad on my worst day as whatever clowns you are in the presence of in the NCGA.

[Kluge]

moving with piles of books is a pita.

I'll give you that.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I will continue to read real books, mainly because I find them to be more aesthetically pleasing.

[moostraks]

A thumb drive is just data storage. None of that fancy wifi or tracking stuff. It'll keep the data for a very long time (forever?) without electricity

An emp will render that thumb drive useless. My hard copy of Storey's Basic Country Skills: A Practical Guide to Self-Reliance http://www.amazon.com/Storeys-Basic-Country-Skills-Self-Reliance/dp/1580172024/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341318741&sr=8-1&keywords=storey%27s+basic+country+skills will still be readable.

For me, nothing beats the smell and feel of old books. The knowledge of the people who have read the same pages more than one hundred years prior to me (as those are my favorite books for collecting!) I also love the feel of being the first person to crack the spine of a new book and create my own testimony of ownership of a book. I love to read everywhere, but with many children underfoot my longest stretches of peace and quiet are bath time. I don't think my klutsy self should be taking electronics to the bath to read...

So the authoritarian control freaks will have to go through more effort to steal my reading material they may deem unacceptable in the dystopian nightmare they seem bent on imposing upon us.

[Luciconsort]

You're already on "The List" by virtue of being on this site. But just in case, reported.
http://www.*****ty.com/wp/docs/2008/11/20070227_napolitano_3.jpg

at least I'm in good company :) see y'all at the FEMA camp.

[jmdrake]

A thumb drive is just data storage. None of that fancy wifi or tracking stuff. It'll keep the data for a very long time (forever?) without electricity

Ummmmm.....some thumb drives do track.

See: http://www.gps-tracker.com/technology/370-gps-tracking-flash-drives

And yeah, it's possible (now) to buy thumb drives without tracking. But imagine if the security state mandated GPS tracking and wireless connectivity to all thumb drives? Or at least the ability for a thumb drive, once connected to a computer, to report its location and other information over the Internet? But that's of little concern to me. If things get that bad they'll just be putting a chips in people's brains anyway. ;)

[jmdrake]

LOL some of the folks around here are almost as bad as the dingbat Dems and retard Reps I have to deal with in the legislature. "If you don't 100% agree with me then you are 100% teh enemy!!!11!!1!"

...and if I 85% agree with you, am I still 100% the enemy?

This is why I have avoided the whole IP war heretofore, and should have kept avoiding it. Too many people around these parts are entirely irrational on the subject.

*sigh* What's gotten lost in the whole "You're a thief that wants to enslave content creators....no you're an IP Nazi that wants to enslave end users" is any discussion of middle ground where content creators get paid and content owners have complete freedom to do what they want with the content once they get it. That does happen you know. I gave a couple of ideas about that in the other thread and they were either straight up ignored or attacked without you or anyone else even attempting to give any other alternatives. Sometimes it's easier to find common ground outside the "liberty movement" than within it. Or maybe the problem is computer forums as a discussion medium. Yes, when all else fails blame the technology. ;)

[Slacker]

If we're all suppose to be about reducing the size of government, I think giving government the power to regulate all free market products seems kinda counterproductive. Okay, I guess "IP Nazis" was a little too much, I'm willing to find some middle ground, how about "IP Gordon Gekkos"? :D

[ZenBowman]

OP read "The Technological Society", you seem to echo Jacques Ellul with your posts.

We get it, you don't like technology because it reduces privacy. At the same time, technological improvement can not be stopped.

[r3volution]

but if I have a physical copy, I can let people borrow it, , throw multiple ones at intruders, rip it to shreds, use it for gift wrap...I can almost own the medium that the words are on--if it's a physical book.
F that, they should pay me to use an e-book. forwarded to the copyright czar"s central office ! http://www.hobotrashcan.com/gettingtoknow/photos/pirates7b.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

That's exactly my point.

The claim is that facility can process yottabytes of data, in real time, every day.

That's enough to "surveil all the things".



That's what this is for:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/wp-content/gallery/20-04/ff_nsadatacenter_f.jpg

Face recognition, license plate reading... behavioral analysis... theoretically they could have it look for someone smoking a joint, and send an automatic alert

[Acala]

That's exactly my point.

The claim is that facility can process yottabytes of data, in real time, every day.

That's enough to "surveil all the things".

Quantity of data is entirely unrelated to quality of data. Indeed, there is, to some extent, a reverse correlation. If I were a terrorist bent on anti-government violence, I would MUCH rather have the governement using relatively dumb technology to sift through nearly infinite quantities of data than to have the government using a few smart human agents to infiltrate and sniff me out. In fact, I am willing to bet that the mass screening technique virtually NEVER yields a "bust". All the actual busts come from informants and infiltration. It's like the difference between a blind machine gunner and a sniper.

[Pericles]

A common theme throughout dystopian literature, is the banning, editing, removing, revising, and monitoring of books, who reads them and why.

There is a reason for this.

It's bad enough trying to decipher ancient runes that are thousands of years old.

Try getting any data off of this, and this is only after thirty years:

http://plutonius.aibrean.com/images/models/5Flop.JPG

E-books, and the knowledge that they contain, will be unusable in 30 years or so, and much will be lost.


My Commodore 128D still works ....

[TheGrinch]

Now let me ask, would your fellow metal bands be happy if you copied their music, printed up T-shirts with their logo, and then went out to sell it all to bank on their popularity for your own profit?

See, anti-IP works fine if everyone respects eachother's individual works and don't exploit eachother. I listen to plenty bands that give away bootlegs for free, and I support by purchasing their soundboard recordings and albums, but you can rest assured that if someone else was profiting from their music besides them, such as by selling T-shirts with their band logo, then they'd put a stop to it.

Unfortunately however, the more money there is in an industry, the more rife it is for original works to be taken and exploited. You might not see that as theft, but I don't know how else I can describe taking someone's hard work, and ignoring their request that you not copy it other than for your own use, and then expect you have the right to profit from their entire mass of work just because you purchased one unit.

And since you used the example of the metal community, do you not see that the community is rife with competition, with or without copyrights? Just because you hold a "monopoly" on the artistic work you created (misunderstanding of what monopoly means), does not mean that there is no competition (what monopoly would imply). You cannot copyright the style "metal", so there can be literally thousands competing for audiences and dollars. It does not restrict anything, it only protects the owner from having their original work ripped off. You are still more than free to make a song that is 95% like mine. You just can't plagiarize me or claim right to and exploit my personal works without my permission. The copyright stamp on the back is a contract that states that.

Anyways, I don't have the patience to get into this again, but I have to question the morals of those who can justify exploitation of others, jsut because their work happens to be less tangible (though still tangible) and easier to rip off nowadays.


I take umbrage at calling yourself abnormal, as well as myself. :p I kid I kid. I don't see any fundamental reason why we are any different than any other human who has all the same faculties and reason as we do. Sure, they may not use it to it's potential as we do, but even they aren't so dumb to not understand that if you want a good to continue to be produced the person who is producing it must be able to make enough money to at the very least, make ends meat so to speak. There'll always be demand for imaginative works, for culture, for the arts (and there are some neat comparisons / case studies comparing Pre-Unification Germany City-States which had no IP and England which had/has very strict IP that clearly destroy the utilitarian notion for IP (let's just say the German's whipped ze Brits butts)), etc.

Those that value and can afford these items, goods, works, etc. will surely support the creators. As just one example I know many people in the metal community to wit I am a part, not only donate to their favorite bands, but readily buy shirts, or request to go around music labels to buy CD's, etc. even though surely they could get it for free. The great thing about abolishing IP is that it removes the monopoly, and I think we can both agree that monopolies are antithetical to competition, innovation, and progress. The point of contention is you (if I am wrong correct me) don't see IP as a monopoly, or you switch between utilitarian and non-utilitarian position whichever fits your normative view at the time and don't see this as a monopoly..However, can you agree that a person who yields a IP-grant is the sole 'owner' or producer of said specific good? Imagine if only Ford could build a car, or only the family of Diesel could build an engine, how much better off society would be with those monopolies? Not too well, right?

Long winded point: Yes, we don't possess any special gene or trait that other human's are missing.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Now let me ask, would your fellow metal bands be happy if you copied their music, printed up T-shirts with their logo, and then went out to sell it all to bank on their popularity for your own profit?

See, anti-IP works fine if everyone respects eachother's individual works and don't exploit eachother. I listen to plenty bands that give away bootlegs for free, and I support by purchasing their soundboard recordings and albums, but you can rest assured that if someone else was profiting from their music besides them, such as by selling T-shirts with their band logo, then they'd put a stop to it.

Unfortunately however, the more money there is in an industry, the more rife it is for original works to be taken and exploited. You might not see that as theft, but I don't know how else I can describe taking someone's hard work, and ignoring their request that you not copy it other than for your own use, and then expect you have the right to profit from their entire mass of work just because you purchased one unit.

And since you used the example of the metal community, do you not see that the community is rife with competition, with or without copyrights? Just because you hold a "monopoly" on the artistic work you created (misunderstanding of what monopoly means), does not mean that there is no competition (what monopoly would imply). You cannot copyright the style "metal", so there can be literally thousands competing for audiences and dollars. It does not restrict anything, it only protects the owner from having their original work ripped off. You are still more than free to make a song that is 95% like mine. You just can't plagiarize me or claim right to and exploit my personal works without my permission. The copyright stamp on the back is a contract that states that.

Anyways, I don't have the patience to get into this again, but I have to question the morals of those who can justify exploitation of others, jsut because their work happens to be less tangible (though still tangible) and easier to rip off nowadays.

First of all, it depends on what production provider they are ordering their shirts from that determines their profitability, but we know that given a copyright or patent on their design would necessarily reduce supply. Yes, it may cost the band a sum to commission art for their logo, or it may not - they may produce it themselves, or use stock photo's and works to fashion a logo. So, there is no necessary cost in this process (presupposing of course that IP is not property, otherwise there is cost involved to use these designs -- again, why? Monopoly provider). What does that imply then?

It means that the folks procuring the shirts that you say is copying the design of the metal band is not necessarily any cheaper. Indeed, if they choose a poor provider it may very well end up costing much more than what the band itself is selling their particular shirts for. Note here also, that ceteris paribus, they may well sell a product that the band is not providing (long sleeve wool shirt, hoody, hat, etc.). Now, sure, I don't know anyone who is happy to have competition. I don't even know what relevance that even has. Does McDonald's selling cheeseburgers make Burger King happy and vice versa? Well, if they are both unhappy does that necessitate one or the other receiving a cheeseburger patent monopoly? I'm not sure I understand what you are even trying to derive with this statement.

Of course there is competition, my example however illustrates the proof of how people make subjective valuations and that price is not a sole motivating factor. If you want a particular piece of music you can pretty much get it for free with very little time costs (that is, even those with very short time preferences wouldn't be too dissuaded from spending a few minutes to save a few bucks on a CD, or Itune download provided their subjective marginal utility is sufficiently low (e.g. they aren't millionaires)). People are paying for something they can receive for free precisely because of the understanding that failure to continue to provide an income to these artists will result in them forfeiting that line of work...in other words lost utility (ordinal). Your argument is almost as bad as mainstream economists stating perfect competition, or perfect knowledge of probabilities, etc.

If your thesis is that without IP there would be no creation, what is your answer to Pre-Unification Germany and its mass profileration of creative works compared to the IP-laden England, and how do you answer the criticism that due to the very nature of IP it creates a deadening effect or in laymen's terms...sitting on one's laurels. How is that productive to society to encourage inaction, or artificially low supply, which creates an environment for higher prices?

[jmdrake]

My Commodore 128D still works ....

I don't remember what happened to my TRS-80 color computer. Probably in storage and forgotten somewhere. But it didn't even have a floppy. Everything was stored on cassette tape. Ah...those were the days. :D

[TheGrinch]

First of all, it depends on what production provider they are ordering their shirts from that determines their profitability, but we know that given a copyright or patent on their design would necessarily reduce supply. Yes, it may cost the band a sum to commission art for their logo, or it may not - they may produce it themselves, or use stock photo's and works to fashion a logo. So, there is no necessary cost in this process (presupposing of course that IP is not property, otherwise there is cost involved to use these designs -- again, why? Monopoly provider). What does that imply then?
This is a strawman that makes an excuse that because they may hypothetcially be able to make a logo for nothing, that it doesn't mean anything if they paid a substantial amount of money to produce it (books can take years, movies can take millions). I fail to see what you mean about a monopoly provider. There is no monopoly here. My writing a song doesn't impede your ability to write a song. My making a logo, does not impede you from making your own personal logo. So again, how is it a monopoly if it doesn't restrict competition?

This is where even Rothbard disagrees with you. Competition (along with the fact that it's virtually impossible for 2 parties to independently create the same copyrightable media by pure accident) is precisely the distinction... You having a monopoly on books would restrict others from writing their own, but all that a copyright means is that my book is my book to distribute and allow or disallow permission as I wish. You are freely and fully allowed to compete with my book, not jsut with your own book, but your album, your TV show, or whatever media you create. There is notihng but competitino, other than yes, a monopoly I have over what I created. It matters not if you could have created it, I did, so I determine what rights I pass along with it. If netflix can restrict you to only renting and streaming, then why I am I not allowed to tell you you can't reproduce and/or profit from it without my permission?

If you don't like the idea of ideas being tangible property, then look at it as the tangible media they're selling, and the contract (copyright) that you're agreeing to at purchase that you're not allowed to redistribute it for profit or without their permission. The free market will still demand this in contract form even without copyright law.

And nevertheless, it is also misrepresentation if you print another band's logo in an attempt to pass of your merchandise as ones that were sanctioned by them. Again, would you appreciate someone burning your CDs and copying your bands T-shirts without your permission, so that they can make money off of your popularity?


Of course there is competition, my example however illustrates the proof of how people make subjective valuations and that price is not a sole motivating factor. If you want a particular piece of music you can pretty much get it for free with very little time costs (that is, even those with very short time preferences wouldn't be too dissuaded from spending a few minutes to save a few bucks on a CD, or Itune download provided their subjective marginal utility is sufficiently low (e.g. they aren't millionaires)). People are paying for something they can receive for free precisely because of the understanding that failure to continue to provide an income to these artists will result in them forfeiting that line of work...in other words lost utility (ordinal). Your argument is almost as bad as mainstream economists stating perfect competition, or perfect knowledge of probabilities, etc.

With regard to the bolded, while that can be true for those who truly support the artists and don't want to take money out of their pocket, but particularly when you start getting into an audience of thousands to millions, many of whom aren't nearly as vested in the artists, then you will may find far more who will simply take it for free (not everyone is so kind to pay for something they can get for free, nor is this anywhere close to guarantee that you'll turn any sort of a profit. That should be your choice, not a restriction that you have no control over your work just because of the ease of technology to rip it off). Not to mention the record companies that have far more invested, and have every right not have their media taken for free as they take a loss if enough do. They're not charities, they're businesses making a legit income, unlike piraters and plaigarizers.

Moreover, I think it's anti-economic and anti-liberty to not allow them the choice of whether they allow their media to be had for free (and more importantly not to someone else's profit and the detriment of yourself).


If your thesis is that without IP there would be no creation, what is your answer to Pre-Unification Germany and its mass profileration of creative works compared to the IP-laden England, and how do you answer the criticism that due to the very nature of IP it creates a deadening effect or in laymen's terms...sitting on one's laurels. How is that productive to society to encourage inaction, or artificially low supply, which creates an environment for higher prices?
No, my thesis is that without copyrights, you would have far more exploitation of people's original works to the profit (or denial of profit) by those who rip it off. That's wrong enough in itself without getting into all of the potential repercussions that not allowing people to protect their creative works would have.

[TheGrinch]

Here is how Rothbard explains the difference between copyright and patent, as was somehow used an argument agaisnt copyrights in another thread. Take note of the bolded. It doesn't say that at all:


Part of the patent protection now obtained by an inventor could be achieved on the free market by a type of “copyright” protection. Thus, inventors must now mark their machines as being patented. The mark puts the buyers on notice that the in*vention is patented and that they cannot sell that article. But the same could be done to extend the copyright system, and without patent. In the purely free market, the inventor could mark his machine copyright, and then anyone who buys the machine buys it on the condition that he will not reproduce and sell such a machine for profit. Any violation of this contract would consti*tute implicit theft and be prosecuted accordingly on the free market. The patent is incompatible with the free market precisely to the extent that it goes beyond the copyright. The man who has not bought a machine and who arrives at the same invention in*dependently, will, on the free market, be perfectly able to use and sell his invention. Patents prevent a man from using his in*vention even though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first in*ventor. Patents, therefore, are grants of exclusive monopoly priv*ilege by the State and are invasive of property rights on the mar*ket.

The crucial distinction between patents and copyrights, then, is not that one is mechanical and the other literary. The fact that they have been applied that way is an historical accident and does not reveal the critical difference between them.[96]The cru*cial difference is that copyright is a logical attribute of property right on the free market, while patent is a monopoly invasion of that right.

The application of patents to mechanical inventions and copy*rights to literary works is peculiarly inappropriate. It would be more in keeping with the free market to be just the reverse. For literary creations are unique products of the individual; it is almost impossible for them to be independently duplicated by someone else. Therefore, a patent, instead of a copyright, for literary productions would make little difference in practice. On the other hand, mechanical inventions are discoveries of natural law rather than individual creations, and hence similar inde*pendent inventions occur all the time.[97] The simultaneity of in*ventions is a familiar historical fact. Hence, if it is desired to maintain a free market, it is particularly important to allow copy*rights, but not patents, for mechanical inventions.

The common law has often been a good guide to the law con*sonant with the free market. Hence, it is not surprising that com*mon-law copyright prevails for unpublished literary manuscripts, while there is no such thing as a common-law patent. At common law, the inventor also has the right to keep his invention unpublicized and safe from theft, i.e., he has the equivalent of the copy*right protection for unpublicized inventions.

On the free market, there would therefore be no such thing as patents. There would, however, be copyright for any inventor or creator who made use of it, and this copyright would be per*petual, not limited to a certain number of years. Obviously, to be fully the property of an individual, a good has to be perma*nently and perpetually the property of the man and his heirs and assigns. If the State decrees that a man’s property ceases at a cer*tain date, this means that the State is the real owner and that it simply grants the man use of the property for a certain period of time.[98]

Some defenders of patents assert that they are not monopoly privileges, but simply property rights in inventions or even in “ideas.” But, as we have seen, everyone’s property right is de*fended in libertarian law without a patent. If someone has an idea or plan and constructs an invention, and it is stolen from his house, the stealing is an act of theft illegal under general law. On the other hand, patents actually invade the property rights of those independent discoverers of an idea or invention who made the discovery after the patentee. Patents, therefore, in*vade rather than defend property rights. The speciousness of this argument that patents protect property rights in ideas is demon*strated by the fact that not all, but only certain types of original ideas, certain types of innovations, are considered patentable.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't remember what happened to my TRS-80 color computer. Probably in storage and forgotten somewhere. But it didn't even have a floppy. Everything was stored on cassette tape. Ah...those were the days. :D

LOL - I remember this, writing BASIC programs on cassette tapes.

I even learned how to program punch tape CNC milling machines as a flaming yoot in machine shop class.

[jmdrake]

LOL - I remember this, writing BASIC programs on cassette tapes.

I even learned how to program punch tape CNC milling machines as a flaming yoot in machine shop class.

I wonder what my kids will say to my grandkids? "I remember when we typed on a keyboard instead of using our brain implants". :eek:

Of course that's only if we fail as a movement.